Theological Reflections: the Penal Substitutionary Atonement

This article is near and dear to my heart.

I have written much on the Penal theory; I would argue that it is the very heart and core of the Gospel.

We had an incident here in 1996 in which a guest speaker taught that the penal theory was incorrect. I had to interrupt him, one of the hardest things I ever had to do in my life. It was very traumatic for me, and caused a conflict that took years from which to recover (both personally and church-wise). But I knew I had to do what I had to do.

My point is that the penal theory has been under attack for some time.

Previous versions of liberalism emerged because of disbelief of Scripture.

The new liberalism (as in the case of many emergents) gives lip-service to the idea of an infallible Bible, but argues that it cannot be interpreted, so one is wrong to draw conclusions from it. That is why you are seeing a denial of the penal theory without another theory replacing it as "correct."

This, along with open theism, eliminates truth and replaces it with uncertainty. It demolishes but does not construct. And, sadly, what is under attack are the very most important beliefs of our faith.

The issue behind it is Romans 3:11b

Understood is the idea that none seeks the TRUE God. Why? Romans 8:7

So, since people do not like the true God (except those whom God draws and regenerates), we find the "tares" re-inventing a more desirable God, one who is not bursting with wrath, one who is a victim to the unknown and thus excused from not intervening.

In essence, they may call their God "Yahweh," but He is not the real Yahweh of the Bible.

A very succinct and accurate description.

PSA is hammered in the intermountain West by some LDS apologists as completely incoherent. The Eastern Orthodox don't like PSA either.

But many of God's people cherish the fundamental truth. Rejoicing in Idaho.

The substitutionary atonement certainly needs defending; but it is a mistake to overreact and deny what is in fact obvious in Scripture: that there are numerous metaphors with which the atonement is described, and that we therefore impoverish ourselves (as Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have, in my view) by focusing on only one of the models. Tim Keller is right, I think (I believe he cites Murray on this, but I can't remember) to note that substitution underlies all of the biblical descriptions of atonement, but that they also deal with different aspects and emphases.

The Christus Victor view, for example, did not arise in the Middle Ages but is the earliest well known formulation of the atonement in early Christianity (as Aulen's classic work shows). Moreover, people are mistaken to not see that just as our cultural and historical location predisposes us towards certain views over others (in the pre-modern world, towards communitarian and cosmic views, in the modern West, individualism and naturalistic views), so too our culture predisposes us to overemphasize truths, the result of which overemphasis is distortion.

Critics of a view tend to see quite clearly -much more clearly than proponents- what is, or can go, or has gone, wrong in a view, and wise proponents of that view will take the criticism seriously. It's is an extremely widespread and common criticism that the penal-substitionary view is too subjective and individualistic; as a criticism of a particular doctrine, I think this is nonsense. As a criticism of the way it has often been presented and used, I think it is manifestly true, as anyone, who has a decent sense of how alien modern individualism would be in ancient cultures, can see quite easily. The classical view (which has been the one emphasized in Eastern Orthodoxy, for example; see the review I did for SI on Light from the Christian East), in sharp contrast, takes a cosmic view of sin. Now both are accurate and deeply important; sin has individual, social, and cosmic consequences; and redemption has individual, social, and cosmic effects and purposes (hence all creation's groaning in anticipation). Penal substitution deals only, or primarily, with the individual effects of sin and Christ's atoning work. But God saves individuals as part of the cosmos he created and is redeeming and will finally and fully redeem; and he saves individuals from the alienation, which locks them into themselves, caused by the fall, placing them into a community, eternal and blessed, which is His body, the Church. And it is through that redeemed people, working in and for the cosmos that, like them, is afflicted by a sure-to-be defeated evil, that he has primarily chosen to communicate his grace to his people and to share the good news of the restoration and renewal of all things to which he calls sinners to particpate in through repentance and faith.

It will have been a great, although historically common error, if proponents of penal-substitution react to their critics by failing to acknowledge 1) what is valid in and motivating the criticisms of their view; 2) what is true in and motivating their critics' preferred view. It's too easy, and generally not very helpful, to simply state why someone is wrong (viz. because we're right). It's harder, and generally far more profitable and edifying, to understand why they wrong and what we can learn from them.

All people who love the cross of Christ therefore have the more difficult task of defending an important set of teaching, found through the OT and NT, while also acknowledging the way that teaching has been misused to present a distorted and one-sided view of Christ's atoning work - as if saving individuals from sin was all God was doing in Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Sinners are saved in a social and cosmic context, viz. creation, and this context in its entirety is the object of God's creating and redemptive power. Failure to acknolwedge this is inevitably to distort both the doctrines of creation and redemption. Anyone can tell someone else they are wrong and state why, from their own position, this is so. Few people will seek to understand and learn from those they think have erred. Christians, especially those humbled by the cross of Christ, should be in the latter, not former, group.

Joseph, you are welcome to interact with the thread on this post:

http://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/let-me-introduce-mysel...

PSA is not the only aspect of Christ's death we should proclaim, but it is the central aspect of His death. As Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach put it in their extremely helpful book Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007):

BTW, the authors point to an article by Henri Blocher, "Agnus Victor: The Atonement as Victory and Vicarious Punishment", in John G. Stackhouse (ed.), What Does It Mean to Be Saved? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 67-91, as exposing "a number of historical, biblical, and theological shortcomings in Aulen's work."

Joseph:

Corporate solidarity and limited atonement solves all of the problems that you are attempting to address.

Thank you for this great article. It is a strong defense of substitutionary atonement. However, I have to agree with Joseph in that we seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater many times in discussing alternative theories of the atonement. I would mostly agree with this statement:

But if you look, for example, at Mark Driscoll's book, Death by Love, it is a great example of looking at the truth found in all the various atonement theories, while still upholding a strong view of propitiation and penal substitution. I found Driscoll's approach to be balanced and thoroughly Biblical while holding to truth found in multiple atonement theories. Larry also points out a clear example of a misuse of the various theories as seen in McLaren's Book, The Story We Find Ourselves In. Anyway, to me the bottom line is that the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement explains our salvation, and appreciating the other theories helps us explore more in depth the benefits and glory of God's grace seen in Christ's death for us on the cross.

And there is a reason for this. All of these cosmic and/or corporate issues referred to are subsequent or consequential, not initiative which justifies penal substitution dealing primarily with the individual effects of sin. The disorder of this world, social or natural and the corporate sin, is not the result of its own sin but individual sin. Its subsequent re-order and reconciliation is also consequential with regard to individual reconciliation. That is to say, if there is no reconciliation of man to God there is no reconciliation of any thing in this world of humanity to God but when man is reconciled to God, and he has been, there is a subsequent and consequential re-ordering and reconciliation of all relevant things.

And even the issue of Satan in the Christus Victor model. Christ's victory over Satan is a consequence of his intended objective in the penal substitution, namely man's salvation and his individual sin. To place the conflict between Satan and God as the initiating cause is to ignore the ultimate objective and broadly expressed pleasure of God in Scripture regarding Christ's death which is man's reconciliation. Now it is true that Satan is a larger element than other elements and may indeed but the largest subsequent to man but his defeat remains subsequent to man's salvation and the purpose of Christ's death in proper order. Man is the central objective in the substitution of Christ on the cross, all other issues are subsequent or consequential and without man's reconciliation there is no reconciliation of the other, hence they are peripheral which is why it is rightly primary.

I believe there is an intensification of the use of rationalism and philosophy in certain schools of theology today that have opened the door for imprecision, obfuscation and acceptance of multiple definitions that ultimately lead to confusion and an elevation of intellectual tolerance to the injury of orthodox discovery and reaffirmation. I believe the misdirection of this doctrine can be traced to that in large part.